Fantasea wrote: As I wrote earlier, the vote was not against Kerry, nor was it for Bush. The vote was against the Democrat's penchant for raising taxes on everyone and for the Republican's reputation for reducing taxes for everyone who pays taxes.
Well, you know, that is a shallow and distinctly unthoughtful reason for voting for George Bush.
That may be the reason you voted against John Kerry but that was not the primary reason for most people according to the polls.
So answer my question, is it patriotic to surrender your life, but not your money?
On the subject of same-sex marriage; and, since you have dragged it into the discussion, of homosexuality in general, when a person has the right to freely exercise a choice, why should he be criticized because he voted in a way that you don't approve? The American way has always been to discuss political views in the open and settle the argument in the privacy of the voting booth.
First of all, I didn't drag it into the conversation. It was part of the poll and I was asked why I thought George Bush won. I don't have a problem with people voting how they see fit. I do have a problem with the manipulation of homophobes who came out to vote in a presidential election when they might not have otherwise. It is underhanded and exposes the right's relish for manipulatory politics - and, of course, their bad character. I love how you guys chronically avoid the crux of my arguments.
You may recall the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, passed with overwhelming Republican support and signed into law by then President Clinton. Part of it reads: `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'
It would seem that the eleven to zero result on same-sex marriage ballot initiatives is a resounding statement by the people that they reject the actions of liberal judges who legislate from the bench whatever the lefty-lib-dem politicians can't get passed in Congress.
Oh, so I dragged it into the argument? I love it. Well let me take this opportunity to drag it a little further down the road. Keep your word "marriage," okay? Today I formally announce that I am not married. I would prefer my relationship to be one of a civil union, one that just might possibly mean something because its something that people are fighting for.
You know, like most people, I have witnessed a wide variety of relationships throughout my life. My maternal grandparents were married to each other a total of four times. Yes, they divorced three times. Of all the relationships that have been in or close to my family, only two have been long-lasting and committed. That of my aunt and her female partner, together 25 years, and that my mom's close friends, two men, together for 45 years until one of them died of brain cancer just a couple of years ago. (And, as an aside, he was a well-respected, well-loved high school science teacher - one whose classes parents clamored to get their children into - yeah, times have changed.)
So keep your marriage, okay, because it's a sham. It means nothing. And I want nothing to do with a meaningless formality, now being cloaked in sanctity by the morality brigade that would give the the marriages of Elizabeth Taylor, Britney Spears and even my own grandparents more legitimacy than those of the most loving and committed relationships that I know of.
Yeah, I'm feeling a little combative this morning. But the world is going to hell in a hand basket and I can't bear to hear all this babble about taxes and oooohhhhh, gay marriage. What a joke.